Morning Must-read is a continuation of our ten rounds on moderates: The Mythological Democrat. It's got smarts, sarcasm, cartoons! And I agree with every word.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:22 AM | Comments (180)
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Less than a year into creating a "New Majority" in his own image, David Frum has decided his project needs a new name. One that more accurately reflects what the whole venture is about.

The name we all eventually settled on, after a canvass of opinions, was FrumForum: Frum because thatÂ’s who the editor is, Forum because my job is as much or more to create a venue for the opinions of others as it is to express my own.

Starting today, we’ll operate the site both here at NewMajority.com and also at FrumForum.com. We’ll complete a full conversion to the FrumForum location over the next six months. I hope you’ll adjust your bookmarks – and any citations – accordingly.

Fear not you stupid conservatives...there's a new name but the message is the same. Namely, conservatives (well anyone who doesn't quite meet Mr. Frum's high standards) are screwing up everything.

Just look at todays's elections. Sure a year after the Republican Party and conservatives were declared all but extinct, they are on the verge of, um, winning elections again but that just proves they are doomed! Doomed! he says.

What's the proof of this? Conservatives aren't thrilled that national Republicans want to nominate Carly Fiorina and Charlie Crist types.

Here's what Mr. Frum doesn't get...no conservative should want them to be our first choice. I would argue that Fiorina is as good as we can do in California and still have a reasonable shot at beating Mrs. Boxer, I'm not thrilled about it. While I think itÂ’s worth the compromise, it's not something to celebrate.

I know those are fighting words here but let's move to the real issue.

Why in the world shouldn't we want to nominate Marco Rubio in Florida and do all we can to make it happen? It's not as if that state has never elected a conservative. Jeb Bush did just fine there. Is there any reason to think Rubio is so much more conservative than the former Governor that Florida voters will be repulsed by him? Of course not.

I think you can be a conservative and still be willing to accept the reality that sometimes you have to compromise. I do not see why you should be considered a conservative when clearly your preference is for liberals, even in a state where a conservative can win.

Fum always wants to know why conservatives won't support moderates, well I'd like to know what conservative Frum would support over a moderate/liberal? If not Rubio over Crist in Florida, then what candidate and where will Frum support a real conservative over a moderate/liberal?

Posted by: DrewM at 07:05 AM | Comments (117)
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

Welcome to Monday all. Here we are in Day 99 in the great White House Shunning of Fox news, but it may be coming to an end since Hillary is scheduled to appear on Greta tonight.

Verum Serum says this is a false truce. And meanwhile Fox-appearing Democrats are still viewed as traitors.

A Very Young Steve Martin Appears on The Dating Game Back in 1968
And wins.

One thing many people don't know is that Martin is an accomplished banjo player and has played with Scruggs and others. Of course he doesn't come from the typical bluegrass tradition which is why his songs have titles like "I Think My Masseuse Is Too Chatty." more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:00 PM | Comments (377)
Post contains 284 words, total size 4 kb.

Your cup runneth over.

I like this one. She's cute.

Not an endorsement. I really need NO to win tonight and push my correct picks up into the magical "3" territory.

What a crappy week.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:10 PM | Comments (237)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Over the reporter's advice not to be such a "c---sucker." Not sure what the missing letters are. "Codsucker"? Not enough letters. Maybe in England it's spelled "codd" or something.

Multiple Post sources independently confirmed to POLITICO that Roig-Franzia got hit while defending colleague Monica Hesse from harsh criticism leveled by her editor, Allen.

Allen, according to the Washingtonian, had told Hesse that a piece she had written was “the second worst story I have seen in Style in 43 years."

Roig-Franzia, also working a story with Hesse that ran Saturday, told Allen not to be such a “c—sucker."

Allen swung twice, with one punch hitting Roig-Franzi, according to sources. Next, staffers on the 4th floor —including Brauchli, whose office is temporarily across from the Style section — jumped in to break up the altercation.

Allen, by the way, is 70, but a former Marine.

The Washington Post says it will not comment on "private personal matters," though it did note that the paper finds the term "cocksucker" offensive and insulting, preferring the softer, more sensitive term "sucker of cock."

That's a really old joke of mine but 1, I haven't used it in forever, and 2, it's new to somebody.

Thanks to curious.

Posted by: Ace at 02:16 PM | Comments (216)
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.

A direct shot at Shep Smith. He's not mentioned by name, but everyone knows who he's talking about.

Via Allah, with more. Giddy as a kid in a candy store.

Actually I hear a lot of FoxNews' personalities are feuding.

Posted by: Ace at 02:11 PM | Comments (107)
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

But we'll still be hearing about those calls from nobody of any importance spreading rumors about John McCain's black baby, even though that is now ten years in the past and there are plenty of fresher, more Democratic examples of dirty-pool robocalling.

The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett.

A Democratic spokeswoman says the partyÂ’s chairman, Joe Cryan, was not aware of the robocalls when he denied that the state committee had anything to do with them yesterday afternoon.

Cryan, who told PolitickerNJ.com yesterday afternoon that the Democratic State Committee had “absolutely” nothing to do with the call, could not immediately be reached for comment.

The call angered Republicans and further fueled conspiracy theories that Daggett is in cahoots with the Corzine camp. A disclaimer at the end says it was paid for by Victory ’09, “a project of the NJDSC” (Democratic State Committee), and gave the committee’s Trenton address.

Daggett, for his part, disavowed the call.

“Voters hate robocalls. This is just another instance of the dishonest ways Democrats and Republicans use to win campaigns and to fool voters,” he said in a statement this afternoon. “It is little wonder more and more voters are rejecting these kind of desperate dirty tricks and turning to my campaign for a positive message about how to make New Jersey more affordable and competitive.’’

Before the Democrats owned up to it, Daggett media advisor Bill Hillsman said the call might be Republican trick to generate a sympathetic newspaper story.

Daggett is pretty much a Democratic operative. He's running because Corzine is too weak to win a majority, and his presence in the race is only to help Corzine eke out a slim plurality.

Posted by: Ace at 01:58 PM | Comments (55)
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

We didn't want to win these races anyway.

We could have. If we tried. But we didn't feel like it.

So, screw you. We're still winning.

It's hard to read the AP as anything other than a DNC spokesman.

For Republicans, an election win of any size Tuesday would be a blessing. But victories in Virginia, New Jersey or elsewhere won't erase enormous obstacles the party faces heading into a 2010 midterm election year when control of Congress and statehouses from coast to coast will be up for grabs.

So... it's no different if we win or lose?

Imagine if the Democrats were clearly ahead in these races. Try to imagine the AP's "analysis" reading: Victories in these races do not prove Obama's popularity or ability to swing races, and do nothing to erase the enormous obstacles he faces in passing health care reform or cap and trade legislation.

You would never see that. If that were the case, it would, in fact, be a referendum on Obama, about how wicked-awesome he is.

In fact, should the Democrats win, that is precisely what AP will say tomorrow.

It's been a tough few years for the GOP. The party lost control of Congress in 2006 and then lost the White House in 2008 with three traditional Republican states — Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia — abandoning the party.

So even if political winds start blowing harder behind them and even if they can capitalize on Democratic missteps, Republicans still will have a long way to go over the next year because of their party's own fundamental problems — divisions over the path forward, the lack of a national leader and a shrinking base in a changing nation.

The Democrats, which control both Houses of Congress by large, unbreakable majorities, are unable to agree among themselves on cap and trade, card check, and Pelsoi care.

And they have a national leader. Or Presenter, maybe.

Do they have no divisions over the path forward?

It is odd to me that whether we are discussing divisions or unity, we always speak of them negatively with regard to Republicans, and positively with regard to Democrats.

Democrats united? The party is the most unified it's been in recent history.

Republicans united? The party is becoming increasingly homogeneous and few contrary opinions are expressed.

Democrats divided? The party is a rich tapestry of diverse threads.

Republicans divided? The party is in a state of civil war and cannot even manage to agree with themselves, let alone put forward any consensus plans that make sense to the majority of Americans.

Funny, that, isn't it?

As a matter of fact, the Republicans are pretty well-united, as out-parties tend to be. We fight like wolverines on smaller matters, but we're pretty united on the big issue: Barack Obama must be stopped.

But if the AP were to notice that, they would put it in terms of groupthink and so on.

The GOP would overcome none of those hurdles should Republican Bob McDonnell win the Virginia governor's race, Chris Christie emerge victorious in the New Jersey governor's contest, or conservative Doug Hoffman triumph in a hotly contested special congressional election in upstate New York.
In fact, 2009 seems to have underscored what may be the biggest impediment for Republicans — the war within their base.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might get kicked to the curb due the war within his base -- the same war, really, between idealists/revolutionaries and realists/incrementalists -- but again, it's only the GOP's problem. Because we just fundamentally suck pipe.

...

Still, with Democrats in control, the onus is on the GOP to get its act together.

Again, it's the out-party that needs to get its act together, not the party in complete control of government, which is unable to pass the legislation the president claims will admit of no delay.

See, we need to "get our act together" to get a unified political message.

But they do not need to "get their act together" to unify behind actual legislation Lord God King Obama keeps telling me needs to be passed three months ago.

They can take all the time in the world for that. For us, we need to act mucho pronto por favore.

Posted by: Ace at 11:56 AM | Comments (194)
Post contains 727 words, total size 5 kb.

Funny because it's true. Via Newsbusters, which has a transcript if you'd rather read that. The transcript itself is funny, and reads like Keith Olbermann off his meds and in a manic episode, otherwise known as "Keith Olbermann."

Posted by: Ace at 11:34 AM | Comments (76)
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

Interesting analysis you may find pretty uplifting. Gallup tries to avoid saying that a 2% Democratic lead means that Republicans are actually ahead and will win, at least in so many words. But they kinda say that, with a lot of caveats and hedging.

Let's go to 1994: When the Republicans trounced the Democrats and swept the party out of power in both Houses of Congress.

In 1994, leading up to a Republican landslide, the generic ballot suggested it could be a very promising year for Republicans, as the party actually enjoyed a slight lead among registered voters in several polls. When the likely voter models were applied in the final months of the campaign, Republicans held solid leads among this group of voters.

On the other hand, when Democrats do well in the elections, their numbers on the generic ballot poll show double-digit leads:

Gallup doesn't offer a prediction at this time, except to say that the Democrats' edge in the House is so large that it is "unlikely" Republicans can take that chamber.

But the numbers at this point are close to being 1994-ish.

The generic ballot question does determine, within a range or so of 10 seats either way, how many seats each party will win. If Republicans actually manage to grab 50% of the national vote in 2010 -- which seems quite possible -- they are not nearly guaranteed of taking the House, but it's fairly likely.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

But There are 435 Independent Races! People say this to denigrate the importance of the generic ballot. They're wrong.

Yes, there are 435 independent races. Many seats are not up for grabs, ever. But among the competitive ones, they share something in common: the partisan split is somewhere in the range of... well, not quite even, but not so huge that either party can feel safe.

That means competitive districts tend to be purple. They tend to look a lot like Missouri or, lately, Virginia.

And just as in presidential elections, purple states tend to vote the same way. Not always. Some are more red and some are more blue, so those sorts of states may break from the general trend.

But there is a general trend: If the Democrat gets, say, 53% of the national vote, we can expect all bluish-purple states to go his way easily, and most of the purples, and even one of the reddish-purples too.

House races are the same way. There are different politicians in each and different local issues, but they are determined, to a fair extent, by national issues and national mood. People in the middle think more or less the same way on health care in Kentucky District 5 as in New York District 23.

So these races aren't truly "independent" in the sense that there is no common external force present in all of them, as if they were truly independent flips of a coin. They're not independent in that sense; they'e interrelated. When we say that "a team that gives up 4 turnovers is 95% likely to lose a game," each of those particular games is "independent" in the sense they're different games. But they're strongly related by the fact that in each game, one team gave up four or more turnovers. And that uniting factor allows us to speak intelligently about the likeliest outcome in each of those games. Guaranteed? No. But 90%.

The Democrats have thrown two or three interceptions and seem intent on throwing a couple more.

The generic ballot is fairly predictive. Given a party's getting a vote-share of 55%, for example, it's a pretty damn solid lock that that party will get somewhere between 283 seats and 304 seats, with 294 the most likely outcome.

So when Republicans are polling, essentially, at parity, that's an indicator that 218 seats is not very unlikely. The Democrats have advantages, like incumbency, but incumbency becomes a negative rather than a positive when your party is supporting unpopular measures like PelsoiCare.

Posted by: Ace at 10:47 AM | Comments (153)
Post contains 686 words, total size 5 kb.